Publ

i
cInt
ernat
ional
LawCases(
23t
o43)
Casesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,8299556360

Bar
cel
onaTr
act
ion,
LightandPowerCo.Lt
d,1964
I
ssue-WhetheraStatei
sent
it
ledt
oespouset
hecl
aim ofcompani
esandi
tsshar
ehol
der
s,
and,
whatconsi
der
ati
onsgov
erndet
ermi
nat
ionoft
henat
ional
i
tyofacor
por
ateent
it
y.

Deci
sion-TheI
nter
nat
ional
Cour
tofJust
iceobser
vedandhel
dasf
oll
ows:

(i
)Inmunici
pall
egal
systems,general
ly
,acompany(whosecapit
alisr
epresentedbyshares)
enjoy
saseparat
eandindependentcorpor
ateper
sonal
it
yvis-
a-vi
sit
sshareholder
s.Solongas
thecompanyisi
nexist
ence,asharehol
derhasnori
ghttocorpor
ateasset
s.

2.Themerefactthatdamagei ssust
ainedbybot
hcompanyandshar
ehol
der
sdoesnoti
mpl
y
thatbot
hareenti
tledtocl
aim compensati
on.

3.Onlythenat
ionalSt
ateofacompanyconcer
nedwasenti
tl
edtoexer
cisedi
plomat
ic
proceedi
ngsforthepurposeofseeki
ngr
edr
essfort
hewrongdonetothecompany.

4.
Whenawr ongi
sdonet
othecompany,t
hewrongdoerisnotli
abl
etotheshar
ehol
der
s.
Ther
efor
e,t
heSpani
shSt
atewasnotl
iabl
etot
heBelgiansharehol
der
s.

5.I
nall
ocat
ingcorpor
ateent
it
iestoSt
ates,i
nternat
ionall
awisbased,butonl
ytoal
i
mit
ed
ext
entonananalogywit
htherul
esgoverni
ngt henati
onal
ityofi
ndi
vidual
s.

I
nt hepresentcase,Barcel
onaTracti
on’sli
nkswi t
hCanadaar emani f
old.Besidesbei
ng
i
ncorporatedinCanadaandhav ingit
sregisteredoffi
cethere,
itsboar
dmeet ingswereheldin
Canadaf ormanyy ears.I
nfact
,Canadiannat i
onali
tyofthecompanyhasr eceivedgeneral
recogni
ti
on.AsCanadahadnotespousedt hecause, Bel
gium hadnolocusstanditoespouse,
beforet
heI CJ,t
hecl ai
msofBelgiannationals-sharehol
dersinthecompany .
Casesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,8299556360

CaseConcerningUnit
edStat
esDiplomati
cand
ConsularSt
affinTehr
an(Uni
tedStatesofAmeri
cav
.
I
ran),
1980
FactandI
ssue-I
n1979,
theUSEmbassyi
nTehr
an,
Iranwast
akenov
erbysev
eral
hundreddemonst
rat
ors.Ar
chi
vesanddocument
swer
esei
zedandf
if
tydi
plomat
icandconsul
ar
staf
fwerehel
dhostage.

Deci
sion-I
n1980,
theI
nter
nat
ional
Cour
tdecl
aredt
hat
,undert
he1961Conv
ent
ion(
andt
he
1963Conv entiononConsularRel
ations):I
ranwaspl acedundert hemostcat egor i
cal
obli
gations,asar ecei
vingstat
e,t
ot akeappr opri
atestepstoensuret heprotectionoft heUnited
Stat
esEmbassyandConsul ates,
theirstaff
s, t
heirar
chives,thei
rmeansofcommuni cationand
thefreemov ementofthemember soft heirstaff
s.Thesewer eal
soobligati
onsundergener al
i
nternationallaw.TheCourti
npart
icularstr
essedt heseriousnessofIran’sbehav iourandt he
confl
ictbetweeni tsconductandit
sobl i
gationsunder‘thewhol ecorpusoft heint er
national
rul
esofwhi chdiplomati
candconsul arl
awi scompr i
sed, r
ulesthefundament alcharacterof
whichtheCour tmusthereagainstronglyaffi
rm.

Ni
car
aguaCase(
Nicar
aguav
.USA)
,1986
I
ssue-(1)I
sthej
uri
sdi
cti
ont
oent
ert
ainadi
sput
ebet
weent
wost
ates,
ift
heybot
hacceptt
he
Cour
t’
sjur
isdi
cti
on,
wit
hint
hej
uri
sdi
cti
onoft
heI
nter
nat
ional
Cour
tofJust
ice?

(2)Wher
enogr oundsexi
stt
oexcludetheappl
i
cati
onofast
ate,
ist
heappl
i
cat
ionofsucha
stat
etotheI
nternat
ional
CourtofJust
iceadmi
ssi
ble?

Deci
sion-
Thecour
tobser
vedt
hat
“Ther
ear
enogr
oundsf
orhol
dingt
hatwhencust
omar
y
i
nter
nat
ionallawiscompri
sedofrulesident
ical
tot
hoseoftr
eatylaw.thelat
ter'
super
venes'
the
f
ormer,
sot hatthecust
omaryi
nternati
onall
awhasnofurt
herexistenceofit
sown”.

TheI nt
ernat
ional
CourtofJusti
ceheldUnitedStat
esli
ableforacti
ngi
nbreachofit
s
obli
gati
onsundercust
omar yi
nternati
onal
lawbyt r
aini
ng,ar
mi ng,
equi
ppi
ng,fi
nancingand
supplyi
ngthecontr
aforcesorotherwi
seencouragi
ng,support
ingandai
dingmili
tar
yand
paramil
i
tary'acti
vi
tiesi
nandagainstNi
caragua.TheCourtcall
edupont heUnit
edStat
esto
i
mmedi atel
yceaseandr efr
ainfr
om suchacti
v i
ti
esandmaker eparat
iontotheRepubl
icof
Nicar
aguaforal li
njur
ycausedtoNicar
agua.Itwasdecidedthatthef
orm andamountofsuch
repar
ati
on,fail
ingagreementbetweentheParti
es,woul
dbeset t
ledbytheCourt.

Casesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,8299556360

LaGr
andCase( Ger
manyv
.Uni
tedSt
atesof
Amer
ica)
,2001
FactandI
ssue-Doesastatewhi
chbr
eachesi
tsobl
i
gat
ionst
oanot
herundert
heVi
enna
Convent
iononConsularRel
ati
onsbyfail
ingtoinf
orm anar
rest
edal
ienoft
heri
ghttoconsul
ar
not
if
icat
ionandtoprovi
dejudi
cial
revi
ewoft heali
en’
sconvi
cti
onandsent
enceal
soviol
ate
i
ndiv
idualr
ight
shel
dbyt heali
enunderinter
nati
onall
aw?

Asuitagainstt
heUnit
edSt at
eswasfil
edbyGer
manyint
heInter
nat
ionalCour
tofJusti
ce,
cl
aimingtheU.S.l
awenf or
cementagentf
ail
edt
oadvi
ceal
iensuponthei
rarr
estsoft
heirr
ight
s
undertheViennaConventi
on.

Deci
sion-theCourthel
dthatt
hei
nabi
l
ityunderdomest
icl
awt
oactwasnodef
encet
onon-
compliancewithani nt
ernationalobli
gat
ion.Thecourtnot edthattheeffectofthe‘US
ProceduralDefaul
tRule’,whichwast opreventcounselfort heLaGrandbr other
s(Ger
man
nati
onals)fr
om raisi
ngthev i
olati
onbytheUSofi tsobl
igat i
onundert he‘ViennaConvent
ionon
ConsularRelati
ons,1963’ beforetheUSfederalcour
tssy stem,hadnoi mpactupont he
responsibi
l
ityofUSf orthebr eachoftheconventi
on.

TheCour theldthattheUShadbr eachedi tsobli

gati
onunderAr t.36(1)oftheVienna
Conv entionbynoti nformingtheLaGr andbr ot
hersoft heirr
ightsundert hatpr
ovision‘
without
delay’.Art.36(
1)‘establi
shesani nter
relatedregimedesi gnedtof aci
lit
atetheimplementationof
thesy stem ofconsularpr ot
ecti
on’.Art.36(1)(a)lay
sdownt hatt heconsularoff
icersshall
be
freetocommuni catewi thnati
onalsoft hesendingSt ateandt ohav eaccesstot hem,while
nationalsshallhavet hesamef reedom ofcommuni cationwi t
handaccesst oconsularoffi
cers.
Casesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,8299556360

Anglo-
Norwegi
anFi
sher
iesCase(
Uni
tedKi
ngdom v
.
Norway)
FactandI
ssue-thi
scase,
adi
sput
ear
osebet
weenNor
wayandU.
K.r
egar
dingt
he
breadt
hoft heterr
it
ori
alsea.Nor wayhasacoastofcompl exgeographicalconf
igurati
ons
(deepl
yindentedandcutinto, hav
ingafringeofi
slands)
.In1935,Nor wegiangov ernmentissued
adecreewhi chdeli
mit
edNor way’
snorthernter
ri
tori
alwatersonthebasi sofstr
ai ghtbasel
ines.
UKsubmi tt
edt hemattert
oI CJcontendingthati
nternat
ionall
awr equir
edt hebaselinetobet he
actual
lowwat erli
ne.

Deci
sion-Ongeographi
cconsi
der
ati
ons,
thecour
tst
atedt
hati
fthegeogr
aphi
cal
char
act
er
ofthecoasti ssucht hatiti
sdeeplyindentedandcuti ntoandi ssurr
oundedbyaf r
ingeof
i
slands,thenbasel i
nef ormeasuri
ngt err
it
ori
al Seamaybedr awnbychoosingappropr iat
e
point
sont heseisl
andsandj oi
ningt hesepointsbystraightl
inesfol
l
owi ngthegeneral dir
ecti
on
ofthecoast .Onhistori
cconsiderati
ons,thecour tst
atedt hatNorwayappliedthestraight
baseli
nesy stem consistent
lyf
oral ongtime( since1869).Oneeconomi cconsi
derations,the
courtstatedthatinhabitant
sofNor wayder i
vedt hei
rli
veli
hoodessentiall
yfrom f
ishingi n
ter
rit
ori
al sea.

I
nthejudgement,thereisstrongemphasi suponthelegi
ti
mateint
erest
soft hecoastalStat
e.I
n
t
heprocess,thecourthasat tachedconsi
derabl
ev al
uetothesoci
alconsiderat
ions.Thecourt
,
i
nthi
scase,alsoobser v
edt hattheStatesarenotcompletel
yfr
eeinrespectofdelimit
ati
onof
t
err
it
orial
paterswithregardt ootherSt
ates.

Cor
fuChannel
Case,
1949
FactandI
ssue-whetherAl
bani
aisr
esponsi
ble,
underi
nter
nat
ional
law,
fort
he
expl
osionswhichoccur
redonOctober22nd,
1946,
andtogiv
ej udgmentastot
he
compensation.
Arei
nter
nati
onal
obli
gati
onsinti
meofpeacecreatedt
hroughel
ement
ary
consi
derati
on?

I
nOct ober1946,
whentwoBr i
ti
shwarshi
pspassedthroughtheCor
fuChannel
theshi
psst
ruck
minesandwer edamaged.I
nNov ember1946theBri
ti
shRoy al
Navysweptf
orminesi
nthe
Corf
uChannel i
nAlbani
anwaterswit
houtAlbani
anconsent.
Deci
sion-I
CJdi
dnotexpr
essanopi
nionont
her
ightofpassageofwar
shi
pst
hrough
terri
tor
ialsea.Itli
mi tedit
sobser vationstothecaseof‘ straitsHowev er.somejudges, inthei
r
dissenti
ngv i
ews, madeobser v
ati
onsont heissueofinnocentpassageofwar shipsj udge
Alvarezfeltt
hatsi ncewarhadbeenout l
awedi ntheU.N. Char ter,themi ssionofwar shi pscan
onlybet osecur ethel egi
ti
mat edef enceofcount r
iestowhi cht heybel ong.JudgeKr y lqyargued
thattherewasnor i
ghtofinnocentpassaget hroughthet erritorialsea.JudgeAzev edosai dthat
theposi t
ionofwar shipsi
nr espectofpassagewasdi fferentf rom t hatofmer chantshi ps.
i
nt er
nationalLawCommi ssionhadpr oposedthataSt atemi ghtmakei nnocentpassageofw
arshipssubjecttopr iorauthori
sation,ornotif
icati
on,butt heSt ateshoul dnormallygr ant
i
nnocentpassage.

Casesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,8299556360

Nor
thSeaCont
inent
alShel
fCases,
ICJ,
1969
I
ssue-Mustdel
i
mit
ati
onbet
heobj
ectofanequi
tabl
eagr
eementbet
weent
hest
atesi
nvol
ved?

Deci
sion-Thevi
ewt
hatcust
omar
yrul
esofi
nter
nat
ional
lawdet
ermi
nedt
heboundar
iesof
ar
easlocat
edontheconti
nent
alshel
fbet
weentheircount
ri
esandt
heFeder
alRepubl
i
cof
GermanywascontendedbyDenmarkandtheNetherl
ands.

Thedeci sionofinternat
ionalCour tofJust i
ceDel i
mi t
ationift
oef f
ectedbyagreementin
accordancewi thequi di
stanceprincipleandt aki
ngi ntoaccountalltherel
evantcir
cumstances,
i
nsuchawayast ol eav
easmuchaspossi bletoeachPar t
yallthosepartsoftheconti
nental
shelfthatconstit
uteanat ur
alprolongationofi t
slandt err
it
ory,wit
houtencroachmentont he
naturalprolongati
onoft helandt err
itoryoftheot her”
.Thecour tusedtheterm‘rel
evant
ci
rcumst ances’ i
nsteadoft heterm‘ specialcir
cumst ances.

Li
byav
.Tuni
siaCont
inent
alShel
fCase,
1982
I
ssue-thequesti
onwhet
herpr
inci
plesandr
ulesofi
nter
nat
ional
lawappl
i
cabl
etot
he
del
i
mi t
ati
onmaybeder
ivedf
rom,ormaybeaffect
edby,t
he"newaccept
edt
rends"whi
chhav
e
emergedatt
heThi
rdUni
tedNati
onsConf
erenceontheLawoftheSea.

Deci
sion-Thecourtassertedthatequi
tabl
enessoft
he“
resul
t”i
simpor
tantr
athert
han
“
means”Theequitabl
enessofanyspecif
icpr
incipl
esofdelimitat
ionhadtobeassessedi nthe
l
i
ghtoftheusef
ulnessofthatpr
inci
plei
nachievinganoverall
equi t
abl
eresultFur
ther
,equit
yin
i
nter
nat
ional
lawisagener al
conceptofl
aw,directl
yappl
icableaslaw,taki
ngintoaccountthe
ci
rcumst ancesoft hepar t
icularcase.Ther elevantci
rcumst ancescouldbet hegeography,
geomor phology
, l
andf rontier
, histori
crightsandeconomi cconsiderati
ons.Thecourtnotedthat
meritof“equidi
stancer ule”isi ncasesi nwhi chitsappli
cationleadstoanequi t
ablesolut
ion.
Stat
esmaydev iatefrom anequi di
stanceline,andmakeuseofot hercri
ter
iaforthedeli
mitat
ion,
whenevert heyf
oundt hisisabet terwayt oar r
iveatanagr eement.

Casesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,8299556360

Republ
i
cofI
tal
yv.Uni
onofI
ndi
a(2013)
FactandI
ssue-twoI
tal
i
anmar
ineswer
ebei
ngt
ri
edf
oral
l
egedl
yshoot
ingt
woI
ndi
an
fi
sher
men, cameupbe-foretheSupremeCourtofI
ndi
ain2013.Thecasesparkedadi
plomat
ic
rowbetweenthetwocountri
es,pr
imari
lyduetoast
rongdif
fer
enceofopi
nionwithr
egar
dt ot
he
quest
ionofwhichoft
het wocountri
eshavethel
egalj
uri
sdi
cti
ontotr
ythecase.

Deci
sion-I
nthebat
tl
eov
erj
uri
sdi
cti
on,
Indi
aandI
tal
ygr
appl
edwi
tht
heUni
tedNat
ions
conventi
onont helawofsea(UNCLOS)i
nanef forttopr
ovethattheirhomeCour
thadproper
j
urisdi
cti
on.Indi
awantstopressi
tsMari
ti
mesov erei
gnt
ytotheli
mi tthr
oughani
nter
sect
ionof
uncl osgr antsandreadi
ngofit
sonstat
utes.and, I
ndi
adidsucceed.

art
icle97oft heUNCLOSspeci fi
call
ygrant
spenaljur
isdi
cti
ontothestatewhoseflagt
he
i
njuriousshipwasf l
yi
ngint heeventofacoll
i
sionareanotheri
ncidentofnav
igati
on.I
twas
heldbysupr emeCour tofI
ndiathatsincet
heItal
ydeli
berat
elyf
ir
edonI ndi
anfishi
ngboat
,a
cri
mi nalact
,ther
ewasnoi nci
dent(soastobecov er
edbytheexpressioni
nci
dentof
navigati
on),andthusarti
cal97wasi nappl
i
cable.

Art
icle100ofUNCLOSmaystandat
tract
edifandwhenthedef
enceI
tal
y(v
ersi
on)of
apprehensi
onofpi
rat
eat
tacki
sacceptedbythetr
ial
court
.

AbuSal
em v
.St
ateofMahar
asht
ra(
2011)
FactandI
ssue-AbuSal
i
m,al
ongwi
thhi
sgi
rl
fr
iendMoni
cabedi
,wasext
endedt
oIndi
ain
2005from Port
ugal,af
terIndi
agover
nmentgaveasol
emnassurancebef
oret
hePort
uguese
courtt
hatifconvi
ctedtheywouldnotbesent
encedt
odeat
h.Therewasnoextr
adi
ti
ontr
eaty
betweenIndi
aandPor tugal.

whet
hert
hecr
imi
nal
cour
tsi
nIndi
ahav
ejur
isdi
cti
ont
otr
yinr
espectofof
fenceswhi
chdonot
f
orm par
tofext
radi
ti
onj
udgement
.

Deci
sion-therei
snoext
radi
ti
ont
reat
ybet
weenI
ndi
aandPor
tugal
.Indeed,
acount
rydoes
notneedat reatytodeci
dethatafugi
ti
vefoundwit
hinitsjuri
sdi
cti
onshouldbeextradi
tedt
o
anothercountrythatr
equestsext
radi
ti
on.I
tcanifi
twant stotakethatdeci
sionwi
thoutany
tr
eatyobli
gationswhatsoever,
evenbyexerci
seofexecuti
v edi
rect
ion.

thecourtconcl
udedthatt heappellantAbuSal im canbet r
iedforlaseroffences,evenifthe
samear enotcoveredbyt heextraditiondecreeisthesamei sper mit
tedundersect ion21bof
extradi
ti
onact.Fur
ther, thepri
ncipleofnonenqui ryprohibit
squest i
oningt hefai
rnessoft he
j
udicialpr
ocessinther equestingst ate(t
hatiswhyt hecour t
sofPor tugalawayt hedecisionof
thi
scour t
).i
notherwor ds, t
hequi zquest i
onstatei snottonor mallymakeenqui ryaboutt he
natureofcri
minalj
usticesy stem int herequesti
ngst ate.Theact ualconductoft r
ialofthe
extract
edaccusedislef ttothecr i
mi naljur
isprudencef oll
owedi nther equesti
ngst at
e.

Casesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,8299556360

I
ndependentThoughtvUni
onofI
ndi
a,(
2017)
I
ssue-1.WhetherExcepti
on2t
oSect
ion375I
PCv
iol
ateAr
ti
cle21bykeepi
ngal
owerageof
consentf
ormar
ri
edgi
rl
s?

2.Whet
herExcept
ion2toSecti
on375IPCv i
olat
eArti
cle14bydi
scr
imi
nat
ingbet
weenmar
ri
ed
andunmarr
iedminorgi
rl
sinthecont
extofsexualv
iol
ence?

3.Whet
heranexcept
ionintheIPCcanbemadet ot
heageofconsentuni
ver
sal
l
yfi
xedbyt
he
Par
li
amentat18year
sf orgi
rl
sinal
lotherst
atut
es?

Deci
sion-I
ndependentThoughtcasehast
akenamaj
orst
ept
opr
otectt
hegi
rlchi
l
dby
criminalisingthesexual inter
coursewi thawi febelow18y ears.But ,t
heSupr emeCour thadnot
l
aiddownanyspeci alpr ovisi
onfordeal ingwi thsuchcaseswher et heinter
estofot herchildis
alsoatst ake.I
tdidnotconsi derthosecaseswher et hehusbandi sal soami norandwoul dbe
asi nnocentast hegirlifhav econsensual sexwi thher .InIndia,casesofel opingandmar ri
age
arev erypr eval
ent,t
heApexCour t'
signor ancet owar dssuchcasesj ustbecauset heycanbe
gener ali
sedundert hechi ldmar r
iagecasesi sagai nstt heinterestoft heboychild.TheCour t
alsot ri
edt onotcommenton" marit
alrape"i ssuewher et hegi r
l i
sabov e18y earsby
emphasi singthat“maritalrape”isnott hei ssuebef oret hecour tandj udgementshoul dnotbe
obser vedi nanywayf ort heissueof" mar italrape".Ther easoni ngcour tappli
edforconcl uding
thatExcept i
on2i svi
olativeofFundament alRightswasequal lyappl i
cabletoagirlabov e18
year soldwhoser i
ghttodi gnit
yisinjuredbyt hef orceful sexualrelati
on.
Casesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,8299556360

Gaur
avJai
nvUni
onofI
ndi
a&Or
s.
I
ssue-Thi
swr
itpet
it
ionhasbeenf
il
edpl
eadi
ngf
orsepar
ateschool
sandhost
elsf
ort
he
chi
l
drenofpr
ost
it
utes.

Deci
sion-Chi
l
drenofpr
ost
it
utesshoul
dnotbeper
mit
tedt
oli
vei
ninf
ernoandt
he
undesi
rabl
esurr
oundi
ngsofprost
it
utehomes.Thi
sispar
ticul
arl
ysoforyounggir
lswhosebody
andmindareli
kel
ytobeabusedwithgrowi
ngageforbei
ngadmi t
tedi
ntotheprof
essi
onofthei
r
mother
s.

Whilesepar
ateschool
sandhostel
sforprost
it
utechi
ldr
enarenotdesi
rabl
e,accommodationin
hostel
sandotherref
ormat
oryhomesshouldbeadequatel
ymadeav ai
l
abletohelpsegr
egation
ofthesechi
ldr
enfrom t
hei
rmothersl
ivi
nginprost
it
utehomesassoonast heyarei
denti
fi
ed.

JadhavCase(
Indi
avPaki
stan)
,(
2019)
FactandI
ssue-On8May2017,I
ndi
afi
l
edanAppl
i
cat
ioni
nst
it
uti
ngpr
oceedi
ngs
agai
nstPakist
ani nrespectofadi
sputeconcer
ningal
legedviol
ati
onsoftheViennaConventi
on
onConsularRelati
onsof24Apr i
l1963“i
nthemat t
erofthedetent
ionandtri
alofanIndi
an
nati
onal
,Mr.KulbhushanSudhirJadhav”
,whohadbeensent encedtodeathbyami l
i
tarycour
tin
Paki
staninApri
l 2017.

Deci
sion-TheCourtobservedthatPaki
standi
dnotcont
estI
ndi
a’
sasser
ti
ont
hatMr
.
Jadhavhadnotbeeninf
ormedofhisri
ghtsunderArt
icl
e36,paragr
aph1( b),
oftheConv
ent
ion,
andthusconcl
udedthatPaki
stanhadbreachedi
tsobli
gat
ionunderthatprov
isi
on.

theCourtfoundthatsi
ncePaki
stanhadfai
l
edtoinf
orm Mr .Jadhavofhi
sri
ght
s,i
twasunder
anobl
igati
ontoinformIndi
a’
sconsul
arpostofhi
sarrestanddetenti
on.

I
tbeingundisput
edthatPakist
anhadnotgr antedanyIndianconsul
aroffi
ceraccesst oMr.
Jadhav,t
heCourtwasoft hevi
ewt hatI
ndia’
sal l
egedfai
luret
oco‑operat
eint heinvesti
gat
ion
processinPaki
standidnotrel
i
evePakistanofitsobli
gati
ontograntconsularaccess,anddid
notjust
if
yPakist
an’sdeni
alofaccesstoMr .Jadhavbyconsularoff
icer
sofI ndi
a.

Wit
hregar
dtoIndi
a’
scontenti
onthati
twasentit
ledt
orest
it
uti
oinint
egrum,it
srequestf
orthe
Cour
ttoannul
thedeci
sionofthemil
it
arycour
tandrest
rai
nPakist
anfrom gi
vi
ngeffectt
othe
sent enceorconv icti
on, anditsfurtherrequestfortheCourttodirectPaki
stant otakest
epsto
annul thedeci si
onoft hemi lit
arycour t,
rel
easeMr .Jadhavandf acil
it
atehissafepassageto
India,theCour tfoundt hatthesubmi ssi
onsmadebyI ndiacoul
dnotbeuphel d.TheCourtal
so
found, howev er,t
hatPaki stanwasunderanobl i
gationtoprovi
de, bymeansofi tsownchoosing,
effectiverev
iewandr econsi derat
ionoft heconv i
cti
onandsent enceofMr .Jadhav ,
soasto
ensur ethatfullweightwasgi ventot heeffectoftheviol
ati
onoft heright
ssetf ort
hinArt
icl
e36
oft heViennaConv enti
on.

Casesaresummar i
zedbyABHI
SHEKKUMARMI
SHRA,
CLC,8299556360